That said,

I think your take is a little disingenuous. The way they've used the person's race in the sentence is really common, and we understand in those cases that it may or may not come from a racist place in the writer's heart, and we really only have cues/heuristics/history to go on.

E.g. if I mention that race X commits more crime, the reason I'm saying it and the context of the surrounding text and my tone and wording all inform you of whether I am saying that from a place of honesty (wanting things to be better for everybody, including race X), or a place of hatred for race X.

Generally when a writer inserts a person's race flippantly like in the parent's quote, it comes from a place of pettiness, at least partially (and yes, you can be racist against your own race). In particular, this is a good example of a common format used when speaking sarcastically or bitterly about, specifically, white people (sounds like "a room full of old white men" or "angry white lady"). It's now particularly obnoxious, since its usage has largely outgrown the legitimate grievances which inspired it.

It's important to be extremely careful about this kind of "reverse racism" - yes, the point is that the target race is privileged in some way, so it feels more harmless than "regular" racism. But "reverse racism" becomes "regular racism" very, very fast, and the cute shine drops off of it like a rock. I think we're well into crossing that big fuzzy line at this point (and for the past decade, in fact). I think emotionally intelligent people and good communicators are wary of using "white people" (or any race) in any sentence where it is accompanied by an implied eye-roll.